257 réponses à ce sujet

[Bob from Accounting]

Also, allow me to be the person to say, if it hasn't been said already, that putting up a facade of neutrality by asking for a definition of 'Mary Sue' when you've clearly already decided what you think it is is irritating.

[Bob from Accounting]

- You're always accruing an impressive reputation that invokes awe or praise from people. It's never long before people are telling you what a badass you are, likening you to an unstoppable force of nature, or saying you're something special.

 

I wonder why it is that rarely do people seem to notice the exact opposite happening in games, which is really a whole lot more common.

 

How many countless times in games does the player accomplish some task only to be shouted at to immediately accomplish another task? Often without so much as acknowledgement of what they accomplished?

 

Ramirez! Destroy that column of tanks by yourself! Ramirez! Clear out that building full of three dozen hostiles! Ramirez! We've got a chopper inbound!

[In Exile]

I wonder why it is that rarely do people seem to notice the exact opposite happening in games, which is really a whole lot more common.

 

How many countless times in games does the player accomplish some task only to be shouted at to immediately accomplish another task? Often without so much as acknowledgement of what they accomplished?

 

Ramirez! Destroy that column of tanks by yourself! Ramirez! Clear out that building full of three dozen hostiles! Ramirez! We've got a chopper inbound!

 

Because it means more delicious, delicious XP and loot?

[Maiden Crowe]

But the 'vile action' never having any consequence and the sacrificing being for nothing? No. That's repulsive.

 

It wouldn't be a sacrifice, it would be a consequence of your Inquisitor's rigid morality, unable to save their companions because they were unwilling to do the unthinkable. On the flip side if your character does do the unthinkable to save their companions they may be viewed as an irredeemable monster and as a result support for the Inquisition drops, they may have saved the day but how can anyone trust anyone willing to stoop to such levels to achieve victory?

 

Also, allow me to be the person to say, if it hasn't been said already, that putting up a facade of neutrality by asking for a definition of 'Mary Sue' when you've clearly already decided what you think it is is irritating.

 

But I already know what it means, the question wasn't posed so that I might get a better understanding of the term but rather to question the BSN's understanding of the term, after seeing the blatant hypocrisy and misuse of the term I wasn't sure the BSN fully understood the term, this thread merely confirms that theory.

[Maiden Crowe]

What kind of disfigurement? You couldn't really have anything that would affect gameplay.

 

Think Jonah Hex.

[Maiden Crowe]

Whoops double post 

[Vicious]

You know I find it funny that the one Bioware main character that wasn't a Mary Sue/Gary Stu was Hawke and people were complaining relentlessly about how Hawke was failing at things.

 

 

It's not solely a Bioware thing, though. Look at Assassin's Creed. Most popular characters: Ezio, Edward, and Altair - Three unmitigated badasses whose minor failures are eclipsed by their successes and ride/sail off into the sunset having accomplished all their goals. Least popular? By far Connor, the "Hawke" of Assassin's Creed, who succeeded but also lost everything he had been fighting for.

 

 

I just hope for good writing. If the character is a newbie to a secret organization/heir to a bloodline of heroes/plot twist! was actually killed in the introduction and is actually a fade spirit who doesn't know he's a fade spirit/ is actually the OGB/Warden/Hawke who has amnesia and can the players shut up about them now, who surprise surprise, must ultimately save the day, then write it and write it well.

 

But if we're going to go off word of mouth and basic metrics, people vastly prefer to play a mary-sue esque character than a character who doesn't win at everything... They want to recruit all the companions on the first playthru (if possible) get a 100% completion, bring everyone back from the suicide mission just to show how badass they are. 

 

 

The average player doesn't want Hawke.

 

 

Bioware would be better off making another Bhaalspawn/Revan/Warden who is awesome and stays awesome and never fails at something that isn't resolved an hour later.

[Fredward]

Yah know I've been thinking about this a bit and seeing as how the concept of Mary Sue seems to have different implications for everyone, some of which are very narrow and don't fit most game protagonist's at all, I've made up a new term! Storyline syndrome. Or possibly protagonist disease. It seems that in most games you play a hero, and to be a traditional hero you need the right mix of moxy, tragic backstory, overall excellence, loopholes, logical inconsistencies and plot armor. It's much less about the character being written that way than it is about the storyline demanding a certain kind of character, yah know? People still like their hero stories and you need an epic person for that, someone who has an epic backstory and an epic future and just all over epicness. You can't have someone who fails as often as s/he succeeds, you don't play a farmer with a loving family (that doesn't die) and whose perfectly well-adjusted and when you do play the farmer he becomes a king throughout the game, he doesn't stay a farmer. And in the unlikely event that he does back to being a farmer it's with the kinda winking implication that he'll never be just a farmer again.

 

Is it possible to write a hero-saving-the-world/universe story without them having storyline syndrome/protagonist disease? I don't know. The general consensus seems to be that Hawke didn't fit the mould but Hawke hardly had a save-the-world/universe storyline. I'd actually kinda love a storyline where you try and save the world because DESTINY but you just abjectly fail because logic happened but it would be a novelty, it would take a conscious decision to make that kind of game with that kind of message, it wouldn't just happen, yah know? It wouldn't become a genre. Who would want to continuously play a game where you/your character (depending on whether you're a director kind of player or a self-insert kinda player) just constantly fails because he ran across the street on his way to saving the world and was hit by a bus because he didn't check for oncoming traffic? Or who dies the first time s/he's shot like that nameless mook in the intro? Or has to spend several weeks/months convalescing after every bullet? Or who totally shuts down the peace talks between two vastly disparate groups because s/he broke custom Y (wearing matching shoes during peace talks is seen as a grave insult by the Zearckuins for instance) s/he had no way of knowing actually existed?

 

So no, not Mary Sueness exactly but they certainly get some preferential treatment. Is this a problem with the genre or the writing? I dunno really.

[thepimpto]

Ok how many of you would be open to a situation where success requires the player to perform a vile action that causes them to be despised by all those around them, the only other alternative being failure and losing important members of your party? How many of you would be open to the player character receiving a horrible disfigurement as the result of one of their choices effecting any possible romances? How many of you would be open to a romance that ends badly, resulting in either a pre-mature death for that companion or an event where your relationship with said character is damaged beyond repair? No escapes, No alternate choices that lead to a more optimal outcome.

 

I, personally, would love it. I would greatly appreciate seeing serious companion crises and Witcher-esque early game decisions causing severe immediate to late game consequences. However, the narrative of the game will most likely not be open-ended enough for it. 

[zambingo]

Maiden Crowe

I can agree with the base premise that having a less physically perfect PC could be intriguing (I've always wanted to play a beer/donut gut having PC because reasons) and that appearance being the only one could cheese off other players.

However in regards to the Jonah Hex argument, specifically having been referenced as an appearance that results due to consequence; Some of the decisions that the Warden, the Champion and the Shepard can do are more "ugly" than any physical disfigurement. Looks aren't everything.

With that said there have been gameplay features in BioWare games where negative emotions /or evil actions disfigure the PC's appearance. So I am at a loss why you'd believe this is some ground breaking thing that players have not experienced.

In addition several, if not the majority, have presented you with valid definitions of Mary Sue. Even engaged your propositions not just disregarded them. Given that and your continued certainy only you "know what" and how silly the rest of us are, the only thing this "theory" of yours is proving is that you are, perhaps, a troll.

Good day, sir. I said good day![/Jon Lovitz]

[Bob from Accounting]

It wouldn't be a sacrifice, it would be a consequence of your Inquisitor's rigid morality, unable to save their companions because they were unwilling to do the unthinkable. On the flip side if your character does do the unthinkable to save their companions they may be viewed as an irredeemable monster and as a result support for the Inquisition drops, they may have saved the day but how can anyone trust anyone willing to stoop to such levels to achieve victory?

 

Yes. That scenario is ridiculous and repulsive.

[naddaya]

Yes. That scenario is ridiculous and repulsive.

 

An unlikely scenario, but why ridiculous and repulsive?

[Bob from Accounting]

Because it betrays and compromises the themes of the story. It betrays the reason why the player characters is the Hero in the first place.

 

The entire premise of the Inquisitor, and really all heroes, is a person who rises above the chaos, weakness, and compromise that surrounds them. That's what's been explicitly and implicit promised by the developers. To have this sort of mandatory failure is an absolutely indecent affront to that.

[naddaya]

Because it betrays and compromises the themes of the story. It betrays the reason why the player characters is the Hero in the first place.

 

The entire premise of the Inquisitor, and really all heroes, is a person who rises above the chaos, weakness, and compromise that surrounds them. That's what's been explicitly and implicit promised by the developers. To have this sort of mandatory failure is an absolutely indecent affront to that.

 

Being a hero doesn't mean being unable of failure, making the right choices all the time and being regarded as a moral person. He could be a strong, skilled ruthless jerkass who would complete his task, but be hated by some for the means he used.

 

In any case, it's improbable. I don't think Bioware would do it. BSN whines enough on its own and seems to strongly dislike lose-lose scenarios.

[Maiden Crowe]

Maiden Crowe

I can agree with the base premise that having a less physically perfect PC could be intriguing (I've always wanted to play a beer/donut gut having PC because reasons) and that appearance being the only one could cheese off other players.

However in regards to the Jonah Hex argument, specifically having been referenced as an appearance that results due to consequence; Some of the decisions that the Warden, the Champion and the Shepard can do are more "ugly" than any physical disfigurement. Looks aren't everything.

 

The reason I put forward the Jonah Hex style disfigurement suggestion was to gauge peoples receptiveness to negative things happening to their characters that they may not intend, for instance their character being disfigured to the point that they are no longer the most beautiful person in the universe, would they still want to play a character that is no longer attractive and no longer viewed by the universe as such? Would Dragon Age still be as enjoyable if Cullen didn't have a crush on their protagonist, if Alistair decided to ignore their character and pursue Morrigan or Leliana instead, or if Zevran turned down their character because their face made him want to puke?

 

With that said there have been gameplay features in BioWare games where negative emotions /or evil actions disfigure the PC's appearance. So I am at a loss why you'd believe this is some ground breaking thing that players have not experienced.

 

True and I never said it was, but one only need look at those games to see that the character's appearance changing as a result of their actions is a sore point among many on these forums, as they place a lot of importance on making their characters beautiful and they can't bear anything that might make their characters any less so.

 

In addition several, if not the majority, have presented you with valid definitions of Mary Sue. Even engaged your propositions not just disregarded them. Given that and your continued certainy only you "know what" and how silly the rest of us are, the only thing this "theory" of yours is proving is that you are, perhaps, a troll.

 

Anyone can quote a wikipedia article but just quoting a definition does not mean understanding it, while I will admit there are probably some on these forums who know what they are talking about most of you are either unable to understand or are willfully being ignorant as if you afraid that admitting to liking having your ego stroked somehow makes you less of a person, if you want your character to be a Mary Sue then just come out and say it, while I personally would prefer a game that puts less of an emphasis on ego stroking and more on telling an interesting and believable story taste is entirely subjective and I can't fault you for yours.

[Maiden Crowe]

Because it betrays and compromises the themes of the story.

 

The theme being Mary Sue saves the day without needing to get her hands dirty?

[Steelcan]

Being a hero doesn't mean being unable of failure, making the right choices all the time and being regarded as a moral person. He could be a strong, skilled ruthless jerkass who would complete his task, but be hated by some for the means he used.

 

In any case, it's improbable. I don't think Bioware would do it. BSN whines enough on its own and seems to strongly dislike lose-lose scenarios.

Don't try and reason with "Bob"

 

he believes that heroes must be morally white and nothing else, otherwise they aren't heroes

[naddaya]

Don't try and reason with "Bob"

 

he believes that heroes must be morally white and nothing else, otherwise they aren't heroes

 

I know it's pointless, but it doesn't stop me from wanting to butt heads once in a while

[Bob from Accounting]

The theme being Mary Sue saves the day without needing to get her hands dirty?

 

You want to try speaking to me without resorting to this childish and immature nonsense?

 

It may surprise you to learn that regardless of how much you might worship and delight in the idea of 'getting your hands dirty' making a character someone stronger, it's clearly not supported by the story and thus is an entirely unfit theme to make mandatory.

 

Really, it's ridiculous. The very idea that compromise - by definition someone weakening themselves - makes them stronger, is an absurdity I have difficulty fathoming.

[Steelcan]

You want to try speaking to me without resorting to this childish and immature nonsense?

 

It may surprise you to learn that regardless of how much you might worship and delight in the idea of 'getting your hands dirty' making a character someone stronger, it's clearly not supported by the story and thus is an entirely unfit theme.

 

Really, it's ridiculous. The very idea that compromise - by definition someone weakening themselves - makes them stronger, is an absurdity I have difficulty fathoming.

 

And we have difficulty fathoming what you are talking about most of the time.

[Bob from Accounting]

Being a hero doesn't mean being unable of failure, making the right choices all the time and being regarded as a moral person. He could be a strong, skilled ruthless jerkass who would complete his task, but be hated by some for the means he used.

 

First of all, that's pretty much exactly what a hero means. As in 'making the right choices all the time.' Perhaps not all the time, but pretty damn close to it.

 

Secondly, it's entirely irrelevant, because the point at hand is that the heroic character is very explicitly promised to be a viable option. If you wish to have a total-screw up of a character who makes everyone hate him, I'm sure that will be an option as well.

[naddaya]

You want to try speaking to me without resorting to this childish and immature nonsense?

 

It may surprise you to learn that regardless of how much you might worship and delight in the idea of 'getting your hands dirty' making a character someone stronger, it's clearly not supported by the story and thus is an entirely unfit theme.

 

Really, it's ridiculous. The very idea that compromise - by definition someone weakening themselves - makes them stronger, is an absurdity I have difficulty fathoming.

 

No one said it would make the character stronger. It would make them less than perfect. Interesting to some. Besides, when you're in charge in a critical situation you might not be able to avoid getting your hands dirty.

 

 

First of all, that's pretty much exactly what a hero means. As in 'making the right choices all the time.' Perhaps not all the time, but pretty damn close to it.

 

Secondly, it's entirely irrelevant, because the point at hand is that the heroic character is very explicitly promised to be a viable option. If you wish to have a total-screw up of a character who makes everyone hate him, I'm sure that will be an option as well.

 

Not everyone. Some. Because people have, you know, different personalities and opinions sometimes. He would still save the day and everything, while causing some butthurt all over Thedas.

[Bob from Accounting]

Whether something might  happen is always entirely irrelevant in a story. I can always think up a theoretical situation that might happen. It's ridiculously easy to come up with any number of no-win situations that might happen, both in fiction and in real life.

 

It makes utterly no difference. Stories aren't written and told off scenarios merely because they might happen.

 

As for making your character more interesting, as I said, I'm sure there will options to have your character be a screw-up.

[CronoDragoon]

Think Jonah Hex.

 

So facial disfigurement? (I'm not familiar with that character, just a quick google images search)

 

It seems to me like there could be many more reasons for problems rising within a romance, some of which you hinted at in your post, that are more interesting. Such as moral conflicts, or, seeing as this is a fantasy, some other more compelling form of "disfigurement."

 

For example, in Suikoden 1 there's a female character that falls in love with the main character, but he possesses a True Rune, so he never ages. In Suikoden 2 these characters meet up again after ~7 years or so. She's in her early twenties. He's still a mid-teenager. She breaks down crying because it's only now that she realizes what a fool she was to hope for a romance when she knew this would happen all along. It's probably one of the most emotional scenes I've seen in a game. I would be totally down for something like this, where the PC makes a decision to obtain a ridiculous power, but it also alienates him from others in this way. Come to think of it, this is pretty much what happens at the end of Throne of Bhaal. But I think it'd also work in the middle of a game if - since this is a BW game - the player is given the choice.

[Mockingword]

Don't try and reason with "Bob"

 

he believes that heroes must be morally white and nothing else, otherwise they aren't heroes

Well, even if he's right, protagonists don't have to be heroes.